Kansas principal ordered to apologize for showing a video about white privilege after teacher said it created a hostile

[Libertas]

https://www.insider.com/kansas-principa ... ege-2022-2

Kansas principal ordered to apologize for showing a video about white privilege after teacher said it created a hostile work environment

[carmenjonze]

Conservatives can't do anything original. They even have to parrot the language of sexual and racial/ethnic workplace harassment charges because they're too lazy to come up with their own language. Classic gaslighting and trolling.

[Glennfs]

Conservatives can't do anything original. They even have to parrot the language of sexual and racial/ethnic workplace harassment charges because they're too lazy to come up with their own language. Classic gaslighting and trolling.

Have you seen the video. I have not so there is no way for me to make an informed opinion about the video.
Evidently however those who did see it found it in objectionable.

[carmenjonze]

Have you seen the video. I have not so there is no way for me to make an informed opinion about the video.

The video is linked in the article. Yes, I saw it, actually a few years ago.

Personally, I am not a fan of "white privilege" or "______ privilege" discourses, and I do not use that terminology. I've stated this several times at RFL.

I'm definitely qualified to make an informed opinion about the video. But the forcing of an apology from the principal who showed it has nothing to do with the video, it's about depleting and defunding public schools using "race" as a pretext.

Evidently however those who did see it found it in objectionable.

And?

[Number6]

Have you seen the video. I have not so there is no way for me to make an informed opinion about the video.

Watch the video embedded in the link. It's only about 4 minutes so it won't tale much of your time.

Evidently however those who did see it found it in objectionable.

One teacher complained, only one. What the school board did in ordering the principal to apologize only enables and encourages any one person to be able to remove something from the school's curriculum simply because they don't like it. I guess now it means the flat earthers will want the Copernican model of the universe removed because they find offense in it.

[ProfX]

Throughout history, there are people who have found To Kill a Mockingbird objectionable.

Just because one person claims something is objectionable, doesn't mean it isn't of academic value. Or that there is any real reason it shouldn't be shown.

What happened to this principal is the ridiculous, growing chilling of academic freedom occurring in this country.

[Number6]

Throughout history, there are people who have found To Kill a Mockingbird objectionable.

Just because one person claims something is objectionable, doesn't mean it isn't of academic value. Or that there is any real reason it shouldn't be shown.

What happened to this principal is the ridiculous, growing chilling of academic freedom occurring in this country.

What happened to this principal was the lack of a backbone by the members of the school board.

[Motor City]

Some Kansas history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Kansas, or the Border War was a series of violent civil confrontations in Kansas Territory, and to a lesser extent in western Missouri, between 1854 and 1859. It emerged from a political and ideological debate over the legality of slavery in the proposed state of Kansas.

The conflict was characterized by years of electoral fraud, raids, assaults, and murders carried out in the Kansas Territory and neighboring Missouri by pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" and anti-slavery "Free-Staters". According to Kansapedia of the Kansas Historical Society, there were 56 documented political killings during the period,[2] and the total may be as high as 200.[3] It has been called a Tragic Prelude, an overture, to the American Civil War which immediately followed it.

At the heart of the conflict was the question of whether Kansas, upon gaining statehood, would allow slavery, like neighboring Missouri, or prohibit it—that is, whether it would join the Union as a slave state or a free state. The question was of national importance because Kansas' two new senators would affect the balance of power in the U.S. Senate, which was bitterly divided over the issue of slavery. The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 called for popular sovereignty: the decision about slavery would be made by popular vote of the territory's settlers rather than by legislators in Washington. Existing sectional tensions surrounding slavery quickly found focus in Kansas.

[carmenjonze]

Throughout history, there are people who have found To Kill a Mockingbird objectionable.

Just because one person claims something is objectionable, doesn't mean it isn't of academic value. Or that there is any real reason it shouldn't be shown.

What happened to this principal is the ridiculous, growing chilling of academic freedom occurring in this country.

The very phrase pisses them off. For conservative whites, the issue has never been just public higher ed, or public K-12. It's public K-postdoc, and cradle to grave.

Academic Freedom - Editorial Opinion, Ole Miss libraries, 1969



These creeps sound like Glennfs, just this morning. :problem:

[ProfX]

Hmmmm. Just the slightest hint of anti-Semitism there, labelling liberal professors "pharisees" out to "crucify" education.

But here's the point. Just as freedom of speech is not there to protect inoffensive speech - after all, nobody wants to ban the speech that doesn't offend anybody - academic freedom is there to precisely protect speech in the classroom some might - often without justification - claim to find objectionable or offensive.

[carmenjonze]

Hmmmm. Just the slightest hint of anti-Semitism there, labelling liberal professors "pharisees" out to "crucify" education.

Yeah the WCC was antisemitic AF, and so is its current Conucil of Conservative Citizens incarnation.

Not that you don't already know that. Others might not.

But here's the point. Just as freedom of speech is not there to protect inoffensive speech - after all, nobody wants to ban the speech that doesn't offend anybody - academic freedom is there to precisely protect speech in the classroom some might - often without justification - claim to find objectionable or offensive.

Ohhh yeah. And these rightwing bigots are the first to scream f. your feelings when a Kevin MacDonald is up for tenure.

[ProfX]

The reason I think Kevin McDonald should not have gotten tenure, and it was right and proper to fire the Sandy Hook denier at FAU (who didn't have it), is not because they are teachings things I find offensive. Yes, McDonald is anti-Semitic AF. "I don't hate Jews; I'm just trying to show, scientifically, they are a self-selecting genetic population whose genes program them to undermine Western civilization. "

It's the same issue with the handful of Holocaust deniers, although most of them never make their way into the academy, they usually have to self publish or rant on Internet forums and Facebook.

It's that, of course, they are teaching things that are empirically false on their face. I support academic freedom. It protects your right to be controversial, but not to deny reality and empirical fact.

[carmenjonze]

The reason I think Kevin McDonald should not have gotten tenure, and it was right and proper to fire the Sandy Hook denier at FAU (who didn't have it), is not because they are teachings things I find offensive. Yes, McDonald is anti-Semitic AF. "I don't hate Jews; I'm just trying to show, scientifically, they are a self-selecting genetic population whose genes program them to undermine Western civilization. "

It's the same issue with the handful of Holocaust deniers, although most of them never make their way into the academy, they usually have to self publish or rant on Internet forums and Facebook.

It's that, of course, they are teaching things that are empirically false on their face. I support academic freedom. It protects your right to be controversial, but not to deny reality and empirical fact.

Yes what I meant was that the Kevin MacDonalds of the world have no problem claiming academic freedom to peddle their wares when it suits them. When their opponents claim it, ohhh that’s woke pc cancel culture destroying the fabric of etc.etc.

Freaks.